Abstract
Abstract Field‐wilted lucerne was chopped with a forage harvester at 33 ± 1·5, 43 ± 2·0 and 54 ± 1·8% dry matter, treated and ensiled in laboratory silos during four cuttings in each of two years. Treatments were control (C), sugar addition at 2% of fresh weight (S), inoculum applied at 3 × 10 5 bacteria g −1 herbage (I), and sugar and inoculum combined (IS). Duplicate silos were opened and analysed after 1, 2, 3, (4 or 5), 7, 14 and 60 d of fermentation. The initial rate of proteolysis of lucerne protein decreased with increasing dry matter (DM) content of the lucerne, and was not influenced by the year, cutting or silage treatment. Inoculation increased ( P <0·05) the rate of pH decline for all silage dry matters, and shortened the lag time prior to pH decline with 33 and 43% dry matter silages. Sugar addition had no effect on rate of pH decline or lag time. Inoculation and sugar addition both lowered final pH, acetic acid, ammonia (NH 3 ), free amino acids (FAA) and soluble non‐protein N (NPN) in silages ( P <0·01) and increased lactic acid content with 33 and 43% dry matter silages. Only inoculation was beneficial at 54% DM with no difference between I and IS. The influence of forage characteristics (epiphytic lactic acid bacteria, buffer capacity and sugar:buffer capacity ratio) on treatment effectiveness varied with dry matter content.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 16
Claim · model-written summary
Proteolysis rate of lucerne protein decreased with increasing dry matter content.
- Taxon
- lucerne
Medicago sativat0 - Treatment
- increasing dry matter (DM) contente1
- Outcome
- initial rate of proteolysise1
- Direction
- decreasede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents”
e1“The initial rate of proteolysis of lucerne protein decreased with increasing dry matter (DM) content of the lucerne, and was not influenced by the year, cutting or silage treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Initial proteolysis rate of lucerne was not influenced by year, cutting or silage treatment.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- year, cutting or silage treatmente1
- Outcome
- initial rate of proteolysise1
- Direction
- not influencede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents”
e1“The initial rate of proteolysis of lucerne protein decreased with increasing dry matter (DM) content of the lucerne, and was not influenced by the year, cutting or silage treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation increased the rate of pH decline in silages at all dry matter contents.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- Inoculatione2
- Outcome
- rate of pH declinee2
- Direction
- increasede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents”
e2“Inoculation increased ( P <0·05) the rate of pH decline for all silage dry matters, and shortened the lag time prior to pH decline with 33 and 43% dry matter silages”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation shortened the lag time prior to pH decline in 33 and 43% dry matter silages.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- Inoculatione2
- Outcome
- lag time prior to pH declinee2
- Direction
- shortenede2
- Qualifier
- 33 and 43% dry matter silagese2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents”
e2“Inoculation increased ( P <0·05) the rate of pH decline for all silage dry matters, and shortened the lag time prior to pH decline with 33 and 43% dry matter silages”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar addition had no effect on the rate of pH decline or lag time.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- Sugar additione3
- Outcome
- rate of pH decline or lag timee3
- Direction
- no effecte3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents”
e3“Sugar addition had no effect on rate of pH decline or lag time”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation lowered final pH, acetic acid and ammonia in silages.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- Inoculatione4
- Outcome
- final pH, acetic acid, ammonia (NH 3 )e4
- Direction
- lowerede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents”
e4“Inoculation and sugar addition both lowered final pH, acetic acid, ammonia (NH 3 ), free amino acids (FAA) and soluble non‐protein N (NPN) in silages ( P <0·01) and increased lactic acid content with 33 and 43% dry matter silages”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation lowered free amino acids in silages.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- Inoculatione4
- Outcome
- free amino acids (FAA)e4
- Direction
- lowerede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents”
e4“Inoculation and sugar addition both lowered final pH, acetic acid, ammonia (NH 3 ), free amino acids (FAA) and soluble non‐protein N (NPN) in silages ( P <0·01) and increased lactic acid content with 33 and 43% dry matter silages”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation lowered soluble NPN in silages.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- Inoculatione4
- Outcome
- NPNe4
- Direction
- lowerede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents”
e4“Inoculation and sugar addition both lowered final pH, acetic acid, ammonia (NH 3 ), free amino acids (FAA) and soluble non‐protein N (NPN) in silages ( P <0·01) and increased lactic acid content with 33 and 43% dry matter silages”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar addition lowered final pH, acetic acid and ammonia in silages.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- sugar additione4
- Outcome
- final pH, acetic acid, ammonia (NH 3 )e4
- Direction
- lowerede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents”
e4“Inoculation and sugar addition both lowered final pH, acetic acid, ammonia (NH 3 ), free amino acids (FAA) and soluble non‐protein N (NPN) in silages ( P <0·01) and increased lactic acid content with 33 and 43% dry matter silages”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar addition lowered free amino acids in silages.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- sugar additione4
- Outcome
- free amino acids (FAA)e4
- Direction
- lowerede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents”
e4“Inoculation and sugar addition both lowered final pH, acetic acid, ammonia (NH 3 ), free amino acids (FAA) and soluble non‐protein N (NPN) in silages ( P <0·01) and increased lactic acid content with 33 and 43% dry matter silages”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar addition lowered soluble NPN in silages.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- sugar additione4
- Outcome
- NPNe4
- Direction
- lowerede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents”
e4“Inoculation and sugar addition both lowered final pH, acetic acid, ammonia (NH 3 ), free amino acids (FAA) and soluble non‐protein N (NPN) in silages ( P <0·01) and increased lactic acid content with 33 and 43% dry matter silages”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation increased lactic acid content in 33 and 43% dry matter silages.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- Inoculatione4
- Outcome
- lactic acid contente4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Qualifier
- 33 and 43% dry matter silagese4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents”
e4“Inoculation and sugar addition both lowered final pH, acetic acid, ammonia (NH 3 ), free amino acids (FAA) and soluble non‐protein N (NPN) in silages ( P <0·01) and increased lactic acid content with 33 and 43% dry matter silages”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar addition increased lactic acid content in 33 and 43% dry matter silages.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- sugar additione4
- Outcome
- lactic acid contente4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Qualifier
- 33 and 43% dry matter silagese4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents”
e4“Inoculation and sugar addition both lowered final pH, acetic acid, ammonia (NH 3 ), free amino acids (FAA) and soluble non‐protein N (NPN) in silages ( P <0·01) and increased lactic acid content with 33 and 43% dry matter silages”
Claim · model-written summary
Only inoculation was beneficial at 54% dry matter.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- inoculatione5
- Outcome
- beneficiale5
- Qualifier
- 54% DMe5
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents”
e5“Only inoculation was beneficial at 54% DM with no difference between I and IS”
Claim · model-written summary
At 54% dry matter, inoculation alone and inoculation with sugar showed no difference.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- inoculatione5
- Outcome
- differencee5
- Direction
- no differencee5
- Qualifier
- 54% DMe5
- Comparator
- ISe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents”
e5“Only inoculation was beneficial at 54% DM with no difference between I and IS”
Claim · model-written summary
The influence of forage characteristics on treatment effectiveness varied with dry matter content.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- forage characteristicse6
- Outcome
- treatment effectivenesse6
- Direction
- variede6
- Qualifier
- with dry matter contente6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents”
e6“The influence of forage characteristics (epiphytic lactic acid bacteria, buffer capacity and sugar:buffer capacity ratio) on treatment effectiveness varied with dry matter content”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · soil: chemistry · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
41 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →inoculation · molecular: metabolites · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
66 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
71 papers more in this group
See all 75 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.